15:32:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:32:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/15-wcag3-protocols-irc
15:46:11 <Le> Le has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:47:26 <jaunita_george> zakim, start meeting
15:47:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:47:27 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jaunita_george
15:47:45 <jaunita_george> AGWG-2022-07-15
15:47:55 <jaunita_george> Meeting: AGWG-2022-07-15
15:48:01 <jaunita_george> Chair: jaunita_george
15:49:44 <jaunita_george> Agenda+Review Progress on Protocols and Assertions Example (25 minutes)
15:49:59 <jaunita_george> Agenda+Review Progress on Evaluating Procedures Example (25 minutes)
15:50:14 <jaunita_george> rrsagent, make logs world
15:51:51 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:00:15 <MichaelC> present+
16:01:49 <jaunita_george> present+
16:02:59 <Chuck_> Chuck_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:03:03 <Chuck_> present+
16:03:08 <Le> present+
16:03:10 <jeanne> present+
16:03:19 <Sheri_B-H__> Sheri_B-H__ has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:03:24 <Sheri_B-H__> present+
16:03:39 <Rachael> present+
16:03:39 <Sheri_B-H__> scribe:Sheri_B-H
16:03:54 <jaunita_george> zakim, take up item 2
16:03:54 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Review Progress on Evaluating Procedures Example (25 minutes) -- taken up [from jaunita_george]
16:04:18 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: taking up the 2nd agenda item since John isn't here
16:05:01 <Poornima_> Poornima_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:05:30 <jaunita_george> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/guidelines/index.html#outcome-implementation-procedures
16:06:08 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: Added new section 5 after the testing section
16:06:25 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: some things remaining for pull request
16:06:48 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: it is that important that it needs it's own section, it may not be possible to conform to WCAG 3 without having some protocols
16:07:16 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: because of the controversy about "protocols" named them outcome implementation procedures
16:07:19 <Rachael> q+ to note that we need to adjust terms in the editor's note
16:07:59 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: took material from google doc, tried not to introduce things that don't have consensus, shifted audience to external from internal
16:08:00 <jaunita_george> ack Rachael
16:08:00 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to note that we need to adjust terms in the editor's note
16:09:52 <MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/examples/outcome-implementation-procedures/example1.html
16:09:56 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: briefly introduced each of the subsections in Section 5
16:11:28 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: delineated between smaller organizations and larger ones
16:12:23 <jaunita_george> q+
16:12:44 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: will add plain language for all organizations, evaluation example for larger org
16:13:15 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: 5.2 is a direct copy and paste from google doc, needs some wordsmithing
16:13:38 <jaunita_george> ack
16:13:46 <jaunita_george> ack jaunita_george
16:13:51 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: Reports needs to be fleshed out, but tried to stay within consensus
16:14:36 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: Supported outcomes - you have to meet the baseline first.  This should be what goes above and beyond, like personalization
16:15:27 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about FPO
16:15:35 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: how are we supporting each of these outcomes to a greater degree than the baseline using this guidance.  How is it adding in a process outcome quality way
16:15:35 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about universal protocol
16:15:51 <jaunita_george> ack MichaelC
16:15:51 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about FPO and to talk about universal protocol
16:16:04 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: for outcomes, copy and pasted from content usable
16:16:16 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: needs a disclaimer
16:16:21 <jaunita_george> q+
16:17:09 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: for non testable outcomes for small-mid organizations, think about it when you are doing your work.  Might need a "base protocol"
16:17:21 <jaunita_george> ack jaunita_george
16:17:59 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: for this example, we can focus on supporting one outcome for the example procedure
16:18:23 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: We don't have a lot of guidance for supporting some outcomes
16:18:52 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: Create a default procedure for bronze, evaluation criteria for Silver or Gold would be stricter
16:19:24 <Sheri_B-H__> MichaelC: would Jaunita be able to work on an example?
16:19:33 <jaunita_george> q+
16:19:42 <jaunita_george> ack jaunita_george
16:20:00 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: Can integrate anything in Git if Jaunita gives the material to him
16:20:16 <Sheri_B-H__> Chuck: presentation not yet scheduled
16:21:01 <Chuck_> q+
16:21:15 <jaunita_george> ack Chuck_
16:21:37 <Sheri_B-H__> Chuck: wanted to present Aug 2, which means content has to be done July 26 to have time for survey
16:21:56 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: will send Michael her thoughts, but is on PTO next week
16:22:08 <Sheri_B-H__> q+
16:22:26 <jaunita_george> ack Sheri_B-H__
16:22:55 <Poornima_> q+
16:22:58 <Chuck_> Sheri:  I'm happy to participate in drafting if help is desired.
16:23:39 <jaunita_george> ack Poornima_
16:23:53 <Sheri_B-H__> Poornima: volunteered to help with examples in draft
16:25:02 <Sheri_B-H__> Michael: talked about adding subsections or milestone points under evaluation
16:25:35 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: what is in the example is OK for a Bronze level
16:25:53 <Sheri_B-H__> q+
16:25:55 <jeanne> q+ to say that we should be careful of saying   Bronze, Silver, Gold. This does not have agreement
16:27:03 <Chuck_> Sheri:  Is this an opportunity to link to WCAG 2.2 help criteria, or are we looking to avoid?
16:27:10 <Chuck_> Michael:  Not for purposes of this example.
16:27:17 <jaunita_george> ack Sheri_B-H__
16:27:23 <jaunita_george> ack jeanne
16:27:23 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we should be careful of saying   Bronze, Silver, Gold. This does not have agreement
16:27:54 <jaunita_george> q+
16:27:58 <jaunita_george> ack jaunita_george
16:28:01 <Rachael> q+
16:28:13 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: what should we use as an alternative?  Levels 1,2,3?
16:28:17 <jaunita_george> ack Rachael
16:28:50 <jaunita_george> q+
16:28:55 <Sheri_B-H__> Rachel: Keep it generic.  The concept of level is agreed to, it's what the levels are called is the issue.  Talk about higher levels, lower levels, etc.
16:29:12 <Sheri_B-H__> Jeanne: agreed with that approach
16:29:28 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: Higher levels will focus on procedural content
16:30:41 <jaunita_george> q?
16:30:44 <Chuck_> ack jau
16:31:09 <Chuck_> Sheri:  No objection, good approach
16:31:38 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: will write it up
16:31:56 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: TL;DR will review implementation and results at higher levels
16:32:19 <jaunita_george> q?
16:33:03 <Sheri_B-H__> Jaunita: use the listserve to give Michael feedback if you aren't comfortable working directly in the document
16:33:17 <Poornima_> q+
16:33:28 <jaunita_george> ack Poornima_
16:34:06 <jaunita_george> Ways to contribute:
16:34:51 <jaunita_george> 1. Email Michael Cooper and CC our group; 2. Ask Michael for the html file and edit directly; 3. Edit in Github
16:35:44 <jaunita_george> Also 4. Create a google doc and send to Michael
16:36:21 <Sheri_B-H__> rssagent, make minutes
16:36:22 <Rachael> +1 to thank you Michael for all the work
16:36:36 <Sheri_B-H__> rssagent: make minutes
16:36:52 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/15-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
16:36:54 <Sheri_B-H__> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/15-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Sheri_B-H__
16:37:25 <jaunita_george> public-wcag3-protocols@w3.org
17:00:18 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag3-protocols
22:45:57 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag3-protocols